Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00776, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00776    Hearing Date: August 14, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff Tiara Boyd (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted against Defendants City Wax, LLC d/b/a European Wax Center, Becca Stephens, Gabby Dragato, and Sherry Shirvani.  Plaintiff argues that each Defendant failed to provide failed to respond to the discovery. 

On May 29, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendants the discovery requests, such that responses were due by June 29, 2023.  Plaintiff states that none of the Defendants served responses to the RFAs and it does not appear that any extensions were requested or granted.  As of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff states that she has not received responses from Defendants. 

On August 1, 2023, Defendants filed opposition papers.  Defendants argue that the RFAs were served via email though there has been no agreement by the parties for electronic service, particularly since the RFAs were electronically served before Defendants generally appeared in the action by filing their answer on June 14, 2023.  Defendants raise technicalities about the insufficiency of the proofs of service of the discovery requests, arguing that the service was not compliant with CCP § 1013a(2) because it did not have the name and business address of the person making the service, showing that he is an active member of the Bar, showing the date and place of deposit in the mail, etc.   (Defendants also argue that Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing the motion, but there is no meet and confer requirement in the code for motions to compel initial responses, as opposed to further responses.) 

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply, acknowledging that the parties do not have an electronic service agreement, but stating that plaintiff served hard copies to defense counsel and electronic courtesy copies.  Exhibit 1 of the moving papers shows that the discovery requests were served via email.  The discovery requests also include proofs of service showing that they were served via email and mail on May 29, 2023. 

Discovery may be served by Plaintiff without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever occurs first.  (CCP §§ 2030.020, 2031.020, 2033.020.)  On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt – Civil showing that Defendants were each served with the summons and complaint and that their counsel Ricardo E. Diaz signed the acknowledge of receipt of the summons and complaint on May 15, 2023.  As such, Plaintiff was entitled to serve discovery 10 days after the service of the summons and complaint.  Thus, the service of the discovery on May 29, 2023 was proper, even if the discovery was served prior to Defendants filing their answer on June 14, 2023.   

There also appears to be arguments regarding service of the hard copy documents on defense counsel Ricardo Diaz and electronic service (courtesy copies) on Ricardo Diaz and Gregory Garbacz, and that Mr. Diaz was terminated from the firm.  Even if Mr. Diaz is no longer with the firm, he was served with the physical copies of the documents, such that Defendants were served with the physical copies of the discovery on their counsel (at that time), as well as electronic copies of the documents.

            Overall, the parties dispute many aspects about the proper service and technicalities of service of the RFAs.  At this time, it appears that Defendants have not yet responded to the RFAs.  There appears to be confusion about service and whether the documents were properly served or not in a manner that completely comports to the requirements of CCP § 1013a.  Nevertheless, Defendants now appear to be in receipt of all the discovery requests.  As such, the Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part.  The Court denies the motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order deeming the RFAs admitted against each of the Defendants.  However, the Court will grant the motion in part such that Defendants will each be ordered to provide responses to the RFAs without objection within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants and their attorney in the amount of $3,050.  The request is granted, but in the reasonable sum of $1,200.  If Defendants fail to comply with this order or delay in filing responses, the Court will consider increased sanctions against Defendants for future motions.  Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.